Judge clears man accused of arson

Saviour Bugeja, who stood trial for arson, yesterday walked out of court a free man after a judge cleared him on the grounds that the evidence produced by the prosecution did not prove the charges to the level beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr Justice Joseph Galea Debono cleared Bugeja after ruling that the prosecution had mainly based its case on circumstantial evidence that was not unequivocal and the only direct evidence left him tormented by reasonable doubt.

Bugeja, 47, of Zejtun silently embraced his defence counsel, Dr Giannella Caruana Curran and Dr Emmanuel Mallia, on hearing the judge clear him of setting fire to the main door of Joseph Gafá, who was his superior at the drydocks, on March 28, 2000.

After hearing lengthy submissions made by the defence and prosecuting counsel, Dr Stephen Tonna Lowell, Mr Justice Galea Debono carefully examined the evidence brought before him, most of which was circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence, he said, "does not lie but it may deceive" and in order for such evidence to lead to the inference of guilt, it must not leave room for any other interpretation of the facts.

The judge added that the prosecution had based its case on the following circumstantial evidence: there had been several serious clashes between Gafá and Bugeja at work during which Bugeja had threatened to kill Gafá.

When Police Inspector David Saliba went to Bugeja's house on the night of the fire, at about 11 p.m., he noticed a pair of shoes covered in grey stockings and that Bugeja's car engine was still warm (when Bugeja claimed he was home by 9.45 p.m. and the fire was estimated to have been ignited at 10 p.m.).

The prosecution also claimed that the evidence of Bugeja and his friend Raymond Muscat showed that they had driven through Marsaxlokk that evening.

That court expert Alfred Vella had smelt petrol soon after the fire was extinguished and on examining Bugeja's shoes on two separate occasions both tests resulted positive for the presence of petrol.

On examining the evidence and hearing the recordings of the trial, the judge felt that although the circumstantial evidence alone cast suspicion onto Bugeja, when one took note of the explanations given by Bugeja and his alibi, the evidence alone did not allow for the conclusion that he was guilty as there was room for various interpretations.

Although the clashes between Bugeja and Gafá cast suspicion onto Bugeja as the arsonist, suspicion, no matter how strong, did not constitute evidence in the eyes of the law, the judge said.

Bugeja had provided an alibi as to his whereabouts and plausible explanations for several of the issues brought forward by the prosecution.

He said that on the evening of the fire he had gone to Muscat's house to give him advice regarding his sick pigeons. He explained that he covered his shoes in stockings to avoid contamination from the pigeons and that Muscat had taken him home at about 9.45 p.m.

Muscat and Bugeja's wife, Doreen, corroborated this version of the events. Bugeja's wife explained that she had used the car after he got home to go to her mother's house, which might explain why the engine was still warm when Inspector Saliba went to Bugeja's house more than an hour after Bugeja said he got home.

Bugeja had said that when Muscat took him home he passed through Marsaxlokk but insisted that they did not go through the area where Gafá lived.

As for the traces of petrol found on the shoes (that were in the stockings) the court expert had not analysed the shoes separately from the stockings. It was not unlikely that a person stepped on petrol while walking in the road.

The judge commented over flaws in the way the case had been investigated "half-heartedly" and the way the prosecution, both during the compilation of evidence and the trial, had handled several witnesses that would have been questioned further.

In the detailed 23-page judgement, Mr Justice Galea Debono noted that apart from the circumstantial evidence the prosecution also had direct evidence - the allegation made by Gafá who said that Bugeja admitted to igniting the fire in his office at the drydocks.

Quoting case law, the judge noted that admissions or confessions to persons other than a court are "to be acted upon with much caution, as being liable to be unintentionally misinterpreted by the witness".

The judge noted that Bugeja had always denied this allegation and after reflecting at length over the crucial point, the judge ruled there still was a "lurking doubt" as to whether or not the allegation was true or, possibly, just Gafá's attempt to tie the case onto Bugeja.

The judge also added that it was not likely that Bugeja, who denied his involvement to the police for two years, would confess to Gafá.

In the circumstances, the judge ruled he was tormented with reasonable doubt as to whether or not the alleged admission ever occurred. No amount of time spent considering the matter could put his mind at rest that - in the absence of other direct evidence and unequivocal circumstantial evidence - he could rely on this evidence and find Bugeja guilty.